GEOMORPHOLOGIC CHARACTER OF AN UPPER LEONARDIAN

MASS TRANSPORT DEPOSIT, MIDLAND BASIN:

INSIGHTS FROM 3D SEISMIC DATA

APPROVED BY SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE:

__________________________________________

Dr. Sumit Verma, Ph.D.

Chair

__________________________________________

Dr. Robert Trentham, Ph.D.

__________________________________________

Dr. Mohamed Zobaa, Ph.D.

__________________________________________

Ron Bianco, M.S.

__________________________________________

Dr. Shawn Watson, Ph.D.

Graduate Faculty Representative

GEOMORPHOLOGIC CHARACTER OF AN UPPER LEONARDIAN

MASS TRANSPORT DEPOSIT, MIDLAND BASIN:

INSIGHTS FROM 3D SEISMIC DATA

By

PARITOSH BHATNAGAR, B.S.

THESIS

Presented to the Graduate Faculty of Geology of

The University of Texas Permian Basin

In partial Fulfillment

Of Requirements

For the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS OF THE PERMIAN BASIN

December 2018

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the constructive reviews by my advisor and his constant

support to better my knowledge throughout my academic career and to my committee

members for their suggestions for this project.

I would like to thank Ron Bianco from Fasken Oil and Ranch for giving the university the

C Ranch dataset and giving his invaluable insights to help accomplish this research.

I would like to thank Troy Tittlemier from Trey Resources for his insightful advice and

stimulating discussions throughout my research experience and bring clarity to this paper.

I would also like to acknowledge Ron Kenney from EOG Resources for his constructive

reviews from which I have greatly benefited.

ii

ABSTRACT

The Permian Basin is a structurally complex sedimentary basin with an extensive

history of tectonic deformation. As the basin evolved through time sediments dispersed

into the basin floor leading to various mass movements that are well documented in the

Permian period. One such mass movement was observed on 3D seismic in the Upper

Leonard interval (Lower Permian) of the Midland Basin that is characteristic of a Mass

Transport Deposit (MTD). Even though mass movements have been extensively studied

within the Permian Basin, little work has been published on the geomorphological

expression of MTDs on seismic.

The 350 feet thick MTD mapped in the study area is 5 miles wide in its most chaotic

zone, extends up to 14 miles basinward and covers only the translational and compressional

regime of the mass movement. The MTD exhibits an array of features (thrust faults,

slide/slump and lateral wall) that have been well documented by previous researchers in

addition to a unique sedimentary feature, unlike those observed previously that is

interpreted as gravity spreading. Internally, the MTD is characterized as chaotic, semi-

transparent reflectors terminating laterally against a coherent package of seismic facies

interpreted as the lateral wall. The thrust faults within the discontinuous MTD are mapped

using geometric attributes such as coherence and structural curvature. Kinematic evidence

provided by the upper Spraberry structure suggests the overall MTD flow direction was

from the North toward bathyal depths before getting deposited in the medial basin centered

iii

portion of the Midland Basin. Well log analysis shows the MTD as a mix of carbonates

and shales with moderate to high resistivity response which are interpreted as slope strata.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ……………………………………………………………. ii

ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………………….. iii

LIST OF FIGURES …………………………………………………………………... vii

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………… 1

Chapter 2: GEOLOGIC SETTING ………………...…………………………………. 6

2.1 Overview of the Permian Basin ……………………………...……. 6

2.2 Geologic Setting of the Leonardian Series ………………………… 8

2.3 Previous MTD Studies ……………..………………………….….. 11

Chapter 3: METHODS ...…………………………………………………………….... 14

Chapter 4: MASS TRANSPORT DEPOSITS CLASSIFICATION, PROCESSES

AND MORPHOLOGY ……...……………………………………..…….. 16

4.1 Classification ……………………………………………………... 19

4.2 Processes …………………………………………………………. 19

4.2.1 Slides ………………………………………………........ 21

4.2.2 Slumps ………………………………………………….. 21

4.3 Staging Area for Mass transport deposits ………………..…….…. 22

4.4 External and Internal Morphology ……………………….……….. 23

Chapter 5: CHARACTERIZATION OF A MASS TRANSPORT DEPOSIT USING

SEISMIC ATTRIBUTES ………………………………………………… 27

5.1 Sobel Filter (Coherence) ………………………………………….. 27

5.2 Structural Curvature ………………………………………………. 32

5.3 Seismic Amplitude ………………………………………………... 37

5.4 Lithologic Character of the MTD in the Midland Basin …………… 39

v

Chapter 6: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ……………………………………. 43

REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………… 46

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Paleogeography of Permian Basin in early Permian time showing study area in

the red box

Figure 2: Interpreted regional 2D line trending NW-SE illustrating the prograding

carbonate platform basinward due to forced regression

Figure 3: A simplified stratigraphic chart correlating shelf to basin facies (modified from

Handford, 1981). The red box indicates the stratigraphic interval in which the MTD was

deposited

Figure 4: Isopach map of the Upper Spraberry interval. Arrows indicate the primary

sediment flow into the basin during time of deposition (redrawn from Handford 1981a).

Study area within red box

Figure 5: Different process responsible for mass-transport deposits (modified from Festa

et al., 2016). Blocky flow deposits represent a transitional zone between slump and debris

flow deposits

Figure 6: The different processes comprising of a MTD and turbidity flow (modified and

redrawn from Posamentier et al., 2010)

Figure 7: a) A small MTD observed in the Austrain Alps; b) Compression and extension

associated with mass transport deposit. Modified after Posamentier (2017)

Figure 8: A) seismic cross section XX’, B) coherency slice, C) interpreted line diagram

showing the steeply dipping flanks. The big arrow indicates the direction of sediment flow

(modified after Posamentier and Martinsen, 2010)

Figure 9: Section view characterizing the chaotic internal reflectors of the MTD in the

Delaware Basin (modified after Allen, 2013)

vii

Figure 10: Coherence extracted on a stratal slice showing thrust faults (dipping NW),

lateral wall and overall sediment direction.

Figure 11: NW-SE seismic cross section showing internal reflector configuration of the

MTD and interpreted line diagram

Figure 12: W-E seismic cross section showing internal reflector configuration of the

MTD and interpreted line diagram

Figure 13: NW-SE cross section illustrating how coherence, k1 and k2 anomalies are

mapped on the thrust faults

Figure 14: a) co-rendered image of coherence with k2 anomaly; b) co-rendered image of

coherence with k1 anomaly; c) co-rendered image of coherence with k1 and k2 anomaly.

Notice the localized k2 anomaly behind the compressional event

Figure 15: Top of MTD surface co-rendered with coherence and k2 anomalies highlighting

the thrust faults and “v” shaped scour marks. Overall sediment direction is interpreted to

be coming in from the North

Figure 16: Seismic amplitude values extracted on stratal slice showing the change in

amplitude anomalies going up the MTD stratigraphic section (left to right). The overall

geometry of the MTD is hard to discern using amplitude values by itself

Figure 17: Well logs indicating MTD as a mix of carbonates and siliciclastic sediments

Figure 18: Overall interpretation of the Upper Leonard MTD observed in the Midland

basin

viii

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The Leonardian Series of the structurally complex Permian basin had shelf to open

marine depositional environment with many sedimentary features. In the Midland Basin of

West Texas, the Leonard Series (Lower Permian) include siliciclastic and carbonate rocks

that were deposited in deep-water marine environments with detrital limestone restricted

to slope and base of slope settings (Hamlin et al., 2013). Previous studies show the

sediments were deposited as a large basin-floor submarine fan system and are commonly

interpreted as deposits of turbidity currents and debris flow (Handford, 1981). A different

spectrum of mass movement was observed on 3D seismic within the Upper Leonardian

interval of the Midland Basin which are representative of mass transport deposits (MTDs).

In this study a MTD is described as a gravity flow deposit in which grains remain intact

with respect to one another as opposed to turbidity deposits. The MTD mapped in this study

covers parts of Andrews, Ector, Midland and Martin counties in the Midland Basin (Figure

1) and is in the vicinity of the Spraberry trend which accounts for one of the largest plays

in the world both conventionally and unconventionally (Bhatnagar et al., 2018) .

Mass movements generate the most impressive deposits in terms of volume on the

Earth’s surface, in both subaqueous and subaerial settings. Nissen et al. (1999) were the

first one to document the various aspects of mass movements in seismic data using

coherence attribute in the Nigerian continental slope including MTDs. Such sedimentary

deposits are distinctive in deepwater depositional systems mostly due to their large size,

2

geomorphology and chaotic internal character (Shipp et al., 2011). These deposits along

with the process that creates them can have significant hazards by triggering tsunamis or

destabilizing drilling platforms and seafloor petroleum collection (Martinez, 2010).

However, MTDs can play a significant role in petroleum exploration as they may be top

and lateral seals, or may have acted as paleobathymetric constraints on deposition of

overlying reservoir deposits (Amerman, 2009). MTDs are in essence Earth’s modern and

ancient deepwater stratigraphic record and are an important tool in our understanding of

mass movements in slope settings.

With the recent advent of 3D seismic technology and its remarkable spatial

resolving power, MTDs are better defined with their full areal extent and their morphologic

features in areas affected by slope failure. Posamentier gives us a detailed overview of

MTDs in terms of emplacement processes, depositional products, and their stratigraphic

distribution with insights from outcrop and 3D seismic data (Posamentier, 2010). It should

be recognized that it is imperative to integrate borehole data along with seismic section and

plan view to properly define MTDs and understand their lithological character for reservoir

potential (Davies et al., 2007).

Allen et al. (2013) studied MTDs in the Bone Springs formation in the Delaware

Basin of West Texas, USA in which the authors utilized seismic and well log data to map

the compressional feature of the MTDs along with the log responses to highlight the MTDs

reservoir potential. In another study, Asmus et al. (2013) investigated the architectural

attributes of less than 3 feet thick turbidites and MTDs in the Delaware basin and concluded

that more than 90% of these deposits are easily identified in image logs with decreasing

3

gamma ray and increasing resistivity responses. Amerman (2009) explored the structure

and stratigraphy of deepwater MTDs in the Permian Cutoff Formation and overlying

Brushy Canyon Formation in the Delaware basin to analyze the internal architecture and

stratigraphic relationship of MTDs in successions. Much like the studies conducted in the

Delaware Basin from outcrop, image and wireline logs, correlations will be inferred to help

map the MTD in the Midland Basin and understand its geomorphologic expression with

the help of seismic data.

Even though mass movements have been well documented in the lower Permian

period, prior to this study, no other author had reported or studied the MTDs in the Upper

Leonard interval of the Midland basin with the help of seismic data. The following study

aims to identify and characterize the MTD observed in the medial basin-centered portion

of the Midland Basin. The MTD is visualized through 3D seismic data along with seismic

attributes to delineate the shape, size and anatomy of this sub-surface feature. The objective

is to integrate well logs and seismic data along with paleobathymetry to better understand

the geologic evolution of the MTD.

The thesis is divided as follows: Chapter II discusses the evolution of the Permian

Basin through time and sets the geological background of the study area with a focus on

the Lenoarndian series. It further discusses the different structural elements present in the

Midland Basin and their effect on subsequent sediment influx into the study area during

the Upper Leonard interval.

4

Chapter III talks about the methodology and discusses the available 3D seismic and

well log data along with geometric attributes such as Sobel Filter (coherence) and

Structural Curvature that are used in this study to highlight the discontinuous features

observed within the MTD.

Chapter IV forms the basis for MTD classification, different processes that

comprises an MTD and their internal and external morphologic expression. It further gives

the readers an insight of what an MTD looks like in seismic by looking at an example from

offshore Gulf of Mexico and one compressional event from the Delaware Basin.

Chapter V delineates the MTD mapped in the study area and ties in with geology

to interpret the overall sediment direction. Seismic attributes are utilized to understand the

shape and size of the MTD and interpret different sedimentary phenomenon. Wireline logs

are analyzed within the MTD interval to understand the sedimentary features lithologic

character and possible reservoir potential.

Chapter VI discusses the results presented in this study and concludes with an

overall interpretation of the MTD mapped in the study area.

5

Figure 1: Paleogeography of Permian Basin in early Permian time showing study area in

the red box (modified from Ruppel, 2000).

6

CHAPTER II

GEOLOGIC BACKGROUND

Overview of the Permian Basin

The Permian Basin is a structurally complex sedimentary basin with an extensive

history of tectonic deformation. The extent of the Permian Basin spans an area of

approximately 250 miles wide and 300 miles long in West Texas and Southeastern New

Mexico of the United States. The sedimentary section of the Permian Basin comprises of

Paleozoic carbonates on the shelf while siliciclastic and some carbonates accumulated on

the slope and within the basinal regions. Stratigraphic correlations of abrupt changes in

facies type between the platforms and the basin floor can be challenging, although this has

been well documented (Ruppel et al., 2000; Playton et al., 2002). Study of sequence

stratigraphy from shelf to basin sediments using modern seismic surveys with good vertical

and horizontal resolution allows us to better understand the basin’s complexity. With an

integrated approach using wire-line and seismic data, relative ages of major sedimentary

features can be mapped and studied. This thesis focuses on visualizing and describing a

MTD that was deposited in the Midland Basin, in the Upper Leonardian, which is in the

Permian period.

The Permian Basin is known for its unconventional shale plays and at present has

reached a production of 2.8 million barrels per day (BPD), making it the world’s second

largest energy producer behind Ghawar in Saudi Arabia (Rapier, 2018). During Cambrian

through Mississippian, before the Permian Basin completely formed, it was first described

7

to be a shallow marine, slightly dipping basin referred to as the Tobosa Basin (Hoak, 1998).

Sedimentation was relatively uniform and consisted of widespread shelf carbonates and

thin basinal shales (Hills, 1983). Tectonics were fairly subtle up until the collision phase

in the Late Mississippian – Early Pennsylvanian when North America plate rifted and

collided with the South America and African plate giving rise to the Marathon - Ouachita

Orogeny. This compressional event deformed the Tobosa basin that uplifted the basement

block along pre-existing zones of weakness giving rise to rapid subsidence and sedimentary

filling. By later Paleozoic time, the Tobosa basin was divided into two major basins:

Delaware Basin (to the west) and the Midland Basin (to the east) separated by the NW

trending Central Basin Platform (uplifted basement block). The Midland basin, which is

our study area, is a deep water basin bounded by carbonate platforms which originated

during pre-Permian uplift: Central Basin Platform, Northern Shelf, Horseshoe Atoll (an

isolated platform in the North) and the Eastern Shelf (Hamlin et al., 2013).

Tectonism was greatest during the Early Pennsylvanian but persisted into the Early

Permian (Wolfcampian) (Ross, 1986). By the beginning of the Leonardian, however,

tectonic uplifts had become depositional platforms, preferred sites for carbonate buildups.

The Horseshoe Atoll, an isolated carbonate platform in the northern Midland Basin began

in the Pennsylvanian as a broad carbonate buildup that was surrounded by basinal

environments (Vest, 1970). By the Early Permian, more than 1,000 ft of relief had

developed on the aggrading platform system. Starting in the Wolfcampian and continuing

through the Leonardian, the Horseshoe Atoll was buried by deep-water siliciclastic

sediments (Vest, 1970). However, differential compaction of sediment overlying the peak-

8

and-saddle morphology of the Horseshoe Atoll influenced the sedimentation patterns of

the upper Spraberry formation (Upper Leonardian). The structural morphology of the upper

Spraberry formation and how the sediments were coming into the basin forms the basis for

our understanding of the MTD deposition.

Geologic Setting of the Leonardian Series

The Leonardian stratigraphy in the Midland Basin records deposition in an

intracratonic deep water basin, bounded by shallow water carbonate platforms (Hamlin et

al., 2013). Sea level fluctuations controlled sediment input into the basin by flooding or

exposing the platform. Slope environments, which separate the basin floor from

surrounding shallow-water platforms, are characterized by abrupt stratigraphic

discontinuities, detrital carbonates, and clinoform geometries (Hamlin et al., 2013). This is

evident in Figure 2 which shows a regional 2D line trending NW-SE from the Northern

shelf into the Midland basin illustrating the prograding carbonate platform (clinoformal

geometries) basinward.

The Upper Leonardian interval which conforms on top of the Spraberry formation

is equivalent to Glorieta formation (Figure 3) on the platforms (Handford, 1981b).

Understanding the plaeobathymetry of the underlying Spraberry formation with the help

of isopach and regional cross sections can provide useful information on how the sediments

were dispersed to the basin floor and how the underlying seabed exerted control on the

morphology of the overlying MTD.

9

Figure 2: Interpreted regional 2D line trending NW-SE illustrating the prograding carbonate platform basinward due to forced

regression (modified and used with permission after Trentham, 2018).

10

The Spraberry formation of the Midland Basin is a major oil producing formation

from heterogeneous submarine fan reservoirs (Tyler et al., 1997). Regional mapping of the

1,000 ft thick Spraberry fan cone shows that the fan system was deposited in water depths

of 600 - 1,000 ft (Handford, 1981b). The Spraberry can be delineated by three sand bodies

in the upper Spraberry and four in the lower Spraberry separated by 250 ft of limestone.

(Tyler et al., 1997). This cyclic repetition of terrigenous clastics and carbonates and shales

identifies primarily carbonate or clasticly dominated shelf. Most sedimentologic evidence

Figure 3: A simplified stratigraphic chart correlating shelf to basin facies (modified from

Handford, 1981). The red box indicates the stratigraphic interval in which the MTD was

deposited.

11

suggest that these terrigenous clastics were deposited by density current deposits as

opposed to turbidity currents.

Basin wide maps of sandstone distribution in the broadly defined lower and upper

Spraberry clastic members (Handford, 1981 a, b) show that the principal sediment sources

lay to the northwest, north, and northeast. This is evident in the Upper Spraberry isopach

map which shows depocenters around the Horseshoe Atoll in the north indicating probable

entry points (Figure 4). The toe of shelf slope also influenced paths of sediment transport,

particularly for sediment entering the basin from the principal northwest sediment entry

point. Wireline correlations (Ruppel et al., 2000) indicate that cyclic Leonardian platform

deposits started prograding towards the basin into massive, clinoformal carbonates on the

slope, which in turn, grade into flat lying calcareous and siliciclastic intervals.

Previous MTD Studies

In the Midland Basin, Wolfcampian (Early Permian) interval have been known to

host mass movements from the platforms where calcareous highstand intervals, which form

equally widespread layers on the basin floor, are composed of hemipelagic deposits

(mudrocks and calcareous mudrocks) and detrital carbonate mass-transport deposits

(Hamlin and Bomgardner, 2013). Leonardian sequence stratigraphic interpretations in

Midland Basin are based on studies of outcrops along the western margin of the Delaware

Basin by Fitchen and others (1995), Kerans and others (2000), and Ruppel and others

(2000).

12

Figure 4: Isopach map of the Upper Spraberry interval. Arrows indicate the primary

sediment flow into the basin during time of deposition (redrawn from Handford 1981a).

Study area within red box

13

Asmus (2013) talks about the characterization of deepwater carbonate turbidites

and mass transport deposits using borehole image logs in the Upper Bone Spring formation

(Upper Leonardian) of Delaware Basin, Southeast New Mexico and West Texas. The study

investigates the architectural attributes of less than 3 feet thick turbidites and MTDs and

concludes that more than 90% of these deposits are easily identified in image logs.

Increasing deformation of deposits towards the central portion is correlated to high and low

resistivity bedding layers observed in whole core and image logs. The following

correlations will be used to help characterize the MTD in our study area.

Overlying the Bone Spring is the Permian Cutoff formation (Upper Leonardian)

and Brushy Canyon formation (Guadalupian) in the Delaware Basin of West Texas. This

outcrop study conducted by Ammerman (2009) comprises of a relatively fine-grained

(mostly mud-medium sand) carbonate-siliciclastic depositional system that experienced

little to no syndepositional tectonism. The significance of the study was to study the soft

sediment deformation of the MTD and infer the paleobathymetry of the top of Cutoff

formation and its control on overlying deepwater sedimentation patterns. Much like this

study, we analyzed the paleobathymetry of the upper Spraberry formation (tectonically

inactive) of the Midland Basin to understand the MTD sedimentation pattern.

Mass movements have been extensively studied within the Permian Basin, however

little work has been published on the nature of these MTDs and their related

geomorphological expression on seismic. The following sections describes the many

processes that leads up to a MTD and how to classify the different components of MTDs

through seismic signature.

14

CHAPTER III

METHODS

The C Ranch 3D pre-stack time migrated (PSTM) mega merged seismic data was

donated by Fasken Oil and Ranch and covers parts of Andrews, Ector, Midland and Martin

County with a seismic outline of approximately 440 square miles (Figure 1). All the seismic

surveys were acquired with Vibroseis with a sweep of 8-90 Hz, a 2 ms sample rate and

processed with a bin size of 110 feet x 110 feet. The seismic data presented in this study

follows SEG polarity where increase in impedance is a peak (positive amplitude) and a

decrease in impedance is a trough (negative amplitude).

Assuming the limit of seismic resolution is one-fourth of a wavelength, the limit of

vertical resolution (h) for the MTD within the upper Leonard interval was determined using

a central a peak central frequency (f) of 32 Hz, an interval thickness (Δx) of 350 ft (107 m)

and a one-way travel time of (t) 0.025 seconds.

Vertical resolution (h) = ¼ ((Δx / t) / (ƒ)) = 109 ft (33 m)

The MTD mapped in the study area represents an amalgamated flow with vertical

stacking of sediments which exceeds the minimum thickness of the vertical resolution,

making it possible to be observed in seismic. Their seismic signature is characterized by

discontinuous seismic reflectors represented by a series of thrust faults. The MTD mapped

in the study area covers only the translational and compressional regime of the mass

movement.

15

Well Fasken David BR was used to tie in the well tops with the seismic and

establish a time to depth relationship. A continuous seismic reflector within the upper

Leonard interval was picked with high level of confidence across the entire survey. The

picked horizon was flattened and the MTD was mapped with the help seismic attributes

using stratal slices. Geometric attributes such as Sobel filter (a type of coherence) and

Structural curvature were computed on the MTD interval using AASPI software. The

resultant attributes were brought into Petrel and studied using stratal slices.

Sobel filter is a very famous sharpening algorithm commonly used in Photoshop

and image-processing software. The way this filter is implemented in seismic is by

mapping trace by trace discontinuity based on waveform and amplitude changes along the

structural dip of inline and crossline directions (Luo et al., 1996). Structural curvature on

the other hand is the derivative of dip along the inline and crossline direction which maps

the curvedness of a surface. Curvature attributes are usually associated with faults or folds

and measure the strain of the rock which could be correlated to fractures. Incorporating

both the attributes helps define the overall geometry of the MTD and bracket the fault trace

within the compressional event.

Additionally, wireline logs were used to understand the MTDs lithologic character.

The wells logs were selected on the basis of log quality, resolution and depth of penetration

in the area of interest. Conventional wireline logs utilized for this study include gamma

ray, caliper log, shallow and deep resistivity, neutron porosity and density porosity logs.

The top and base of the MTD was picked on a low gamma ray/high resistivity log response.

16

CHAPTER IV

MASS TRANSPORT DEPOSITS CLASSIFICATION,

PROCESSES AND MORPHOLOGY

Mass movements represent the main mechanism of sediment transport in deep

water settings and can range from meter to several miles in dimension. Depending on the

type, mass movements can range from turbidites (in the form of channels, lobes and in

overbank) that are sand prone to Mass Transport Deposits (MTDs), contour-current

deposits and pelagic and hemipelagic (drape deposits) that are mud prone (Posamentier

and Martinsen, 2010). These gravity flow deposits can be divided into two main categories:

Mass transport and Turbidite Deposits. The term MTD include only those processes where

sediments are moved en masse (i.e., grains don not move freely with respect to others). In

mass-transport processes, the main grain support mechanism is not fluid turbulence. Thus,

turbidity currents are excluded (Asmus, 2013). Even though MTDs are considered separate

from turbidites, it should be recognized that a single depositional event can generate both

types of deposits as they are part of the same depositional process.

Posamentier (2017) points out that one can determine if you are in a deep water

setting from seismic data by looking for the presence of widespread polygonal faulting

(i.e., shrinkage cracks), sediment waves, seismically resolvable MTDs and presence of

clinoforms defining deep water setting (geomorphology). On seismic, MTDs have

characteristic stratigraphic and geomorphologic features: basal linear grooved and scoured

surfaces, hummocky relief at the top, and chaotic seismic facies, with internal thrust

17

faulting common (Posamentier and Martinsen, 2010). The term MTD encompasses several

slope deformational processes, including creep, slide, slump and debris flow (Jenner et al.,

2007). The slide/slump stage will be discussed later in this study as it comprises the MTD

mapped in the Midland Basin.

The entire spectrum of a mass movement from slide/slump to turbidity flow is

termed as an Olistostrome (Figure 5). The working hypothesis for the type of flow depicted

in figure 5 is that relative sea level changes influence equilibrium conditions on upper slope

changing pressure/temperature conditions and potential dissociation of gas hydrates. This

leads to slope instability/failure and resulting MTD deposition. Some of the common

triggering mechanism influencing slope instability include re-activation of pre-existing

extensional faults, fluctuations in sea level and dissociation of gas-hydrates (A. Festa et al,

2016). The type of deposit (creep, slide and slump or debris flow) to be expected depends

on the slope gradient, resulting sediment velocity and the hydrostatic forces between the

sediment and fluids. Slope failures caused by gas hydrates and subsequent MTD deposition

are most common in offshore settings.

Previous studies done in the Delaware Basin of the Bone Spring Formation (Upper

Leonardian) suggest that shelf edge and slope deposition of sediments occurred as a result

of decreased accommodation space due to increased carbonate production and hydraulic

degradation and over-steeping of a vertically aggrading shelf margin, among others.

(Gawloski, 1987; Saller et al., 1989; Wiggins and Harris, 1985).

18

Figure 5: Different process responsible for mass-transport deposits (modified from Festa et al., 2016). Blocky flow deposits

represent a transitional zone between slump and debris flow deposits.

19

Classification

Mass movement processes can be classified on the basis of climate, type of material

moved, and triggering mechanism. Many of these classification schemes do not include

subaerial slope failures such as slides and slumps as they are based on subaqueous gravity

flows (Martinsen, 1994). This classification scheme was simplified by Nemec (1991), who

grouped the processes into six categories accounting for both subaqueous and subaerial

processes (Figure 6). It shows a range of mass movements from slow frictional sliding with

no relative movement of grains (creep) to increasingly turbulent movement of grains

(debris flow). One can also think of this as a continuum process where one process may

evolve into another with time, or one depositional process may trigger the other. This

scheme is observable at outcrop and at seismic scale. Outcrop expressions are great for

studying such features for stratigraphic, lithologic and kinematic details, while 3D seismic

provides paleogeographic settings and overall stratigraphic architecture and morphological

expression (Posamentier and Martinsen, 2010).

Processes

Slopes are inherently unstable, whether subaerial or subaqueous, as sediments

deposited on them are subject to gravitational forces along an inclined surface. Analysis of

3D seismic data allows a full spatial view of MTDs. The principal sediment direction can

be easily discerned from such data, although within the MTD the direction of sediment

movement can vary due to localized internal kinematics (Prior and Coleman, 1979; Lewis,

20

1971; Martinsen, 1989). In the following sections, the most common processes that

comprise the MTD observed in our study area are discussed.

Figure 6: The different processes comprising of a MTD and turbidity flow (modified and

redrawn from Posamentier et al., 2010).

21

1. Slides

Slides involve movement of sediments with little to no internal deformation and

exhibits a laminar flow throughout the body of the sediment. This is accompanied by

translation and/or folding of the sediments as they experience shear failure along a basal

deformed zone (Moscardelli and Wood, 2008; Amerman, 2009). In map view, the upslope

region is concave downslope and exhibits extensional faulting. The middle region is mainly

transitional and most likely not deformed. The terminus or toe region is usually dominated

by compressional deformation that produce thrust faults (Martisen and Bakken, 1990;

Posamentier and Walker, 2006) and has a series of convex downslope and characteristically

lobate forms. This is supported by Butler et al’s (2006) recognition that submarine mass

transport complexes on the modern sea floor often display complex rugosity on their upper

surfaces along with detached faults and folds.

2. Slumps

Slumps are characterized by significant internal deformation leading to imbricate

zone geometries (Lewis, 1971; Dingle, 1977) and are usually associated with the toe of

slope region. As the sediments approach the lower slope, frictional drag takes over and

decelerates the sediment flow causing the sediments to pile up on top of each other that

represents a series of low angle thrust faults. Slumping is a common process where there

is significant involvement of clay-size sediments (Posamentier et al., 2010). The main fold

type observed in a slump are sheath folds formed by simple shear and experiences a main

22

phase of plastic/ductile deformation where folds are formed, followed by a late brittle phase

when faults form (Martinsen, 1994).

The mass movement spectrum between slides and slumps is continuous and hard

to distinguish among themselves because an MTD may show characteristic of all two

modes of transport (Bakken, 1987). Observations made from previous work (Posamentier

2010; Allen 2013) has been used to help define objectives for this thesis in regards to

compartmentalizing the MTD and how to best determine the size, shape and anatomy of

the sedimentary feature. Using seismic cross sections, inferring features related to sliding

or slumping can be achieved.

Staging area for Mass-Transport Deposits

As the name suggests, this is the area where MTDs originate. The staging area in

an unstable slope can arise from a range of factors: (1) sudden movement of sea floor due

to seismic events (Seed, 1968; Leeder, 1987); (2) lowering of wave base in response to

relative sea level fall, leading to disequilibrium conditions at the seafloor; (3) oversteeping

of slopes as a result of fault movement; (4) overpressure associated with fluid expansion

and/or mud volcanism; and (5) dissociation of clathrates (essentially gas hydrates) in the

near-subsurface section leading to slope failure (Carpenter, 1987; Maslin et al., 1998).

The largest mass transport events commonly originate in the mid to upper slope

(Posamentier and Martinsen, 2010) and the lithology character of MTDs is ultimately the

lithology present in the staging area. Mass-transport that originate at shelf edge or upper

slope contains a mix of sand and mud, whereas those that originate in mid slope or beyond

23

are more likely mud prone (Posamentier and Martinsen, 2010). Based on the core and

wireline study conducted in the Bone Spring Formation (Upper Leonardian), Wiggins and

Harrris (1985) suggest that slump deposits (a process of MTD) in the Delaware Basin

represent the re-working of slope strata.

External and Internal Morphology

Posamentier (2017) proposed a model of how a subaerial MTD looks like in a slope

setting (Figure 7). Due to slope failure, the sediment block breaks leaving behind a slump

scar and causes the sediments to flow down the slope by extensional structures (e.g., normal

and listric faults). As the sediments approach the lower slope, frictional drag takes over

and decelerates the sediment flow (Posamentier, 2003). As a result, the sediments pile up

on top of each other that represents a series of low angle thrust faults.

Figure 7: a) A small MTD observed in the Austrain Alps; b) Compression and extension

associated with MTD. Modified after Posamentier (2017).

24

Externally, MTDs can assume a variety of shapes and sizes ranging from lobate to

sheet to channel form (Posamentier et al., 2000; Posamentier and Kolla, 2003). The lobes

can have steep flanks of up to 20°- 30° suggesting a flow mechanism that involved an abrupt

halt and forming low-angle thrust faults as it comes in contact and presses against the

terminal wall (Figure 8). The striking linearity of grooves that are commonly observed at

the base of MTDs form because of the laminar rather than turbulent flow that characterizes

these flows. Sediments close to the terminal wall have presumably travelled the shortest

distance (Posamentier and Martinsen, 2010).

Internally, MTDs are described as compressional structures as discussed above.

These faults are characterized as listric curvature which originate at the base and extend

through the top of the deposit (Figure 8 and 9) orientated parallel to the flow direction

(Posamentier and Martinsen, 2010).

In section view MTDs are characterized as transparent to chaotic seismic reflectors

(Figure 8a and 9). The following cross section comes from the Bone Spring Formation in

the Delaware Basin. The deformed area is characterized by arcuate thrust faults dipping

NW (Allen, 2013). The MTD base acts as a detachment surface evidenced by coherent

seismic reflector. The overlying strata above the MTD follows similar architecture

indicating the MTD is bounded by an interval of approximately 400 feet. The log signature

of high and low resistivity response in the deformed MTD zone agrees with the results

presented by Asmus (2013).

25

The internal chaotic nature of MTDs can be sometimes hard to interpret on seismic

profiles because of their highly disruptive pattern. To overcome this problem, analysis of

seismic profile along with seismic attributes can be the most optimum method to properly

characterize the MTD’s internal architecture. Knowing the different components that make

up an MTD, one can begin to highlight known features with seismic attributes and

compartmentalize the sedimentary feature in order to understand the internal anatomy of

the MTD in the subsurface. Ultimately, with proper well control and seismic coverage, it

is possible to predict potential reservoir targets if any within the MTD system.

26

Figure 8: A) seismic cross section XX’, B) coherency slice, C) interpreted line diagram

showing the steeply dipping flanks. The big arrow indicates the direction of sediment

flow (modified after Posamentier and Martinsen, 2010).

Figure 9: Section view characterizing the chaotic internal reflectors of the MTD observed

in the Delaware Basin (modified after Allen, 2013).

27

CHAPTER V

CHARATERIZATION OF MASS TRANSPORT DEPOSITS

USING SEISMIC ATTRIBUTES

3D seismic attributes are quantitative measures or derivative product (Marfurt,

2018) that gives insight on the external and internal geomorphology of geological features.

There are several attributes that can be used to map discontinuous features, however

geometric attributes are the most useful methodology for studying MTDs (Martinez, 2010).

Geometric attributes include coherence, variance, dip, azimuth and curvature amongst

others. For this study, coherence and structural curvature attributes were used to help

characterize the shape and size of the MTD observed in the Midland Basin and study its

internal architecture with the help of seismic profiles. The MTD mapped in the study area

covers only the translational and compressional regime of the mass movement; is lobate

shape, 5 miles wide and extends up to 15 miles basinward. The following sections discusses

how the attributes were used to delineate the MTD.

Sobel Filter (Coherence)

Sobel filter is an edge detection technology that is commonly used in image

processing packages that scans the data horizontally and vertically to map discontinuities.

That way this filter is implemented in seismic is similar to semblence or variance that is

used to map discontinuous features such as channels, faults and fractures (Khoudaiberdiev

et al., 2017; Bhatnagar et al., 2017). It detects the break in reflector configuration or lateral

28

changes in amplitude values and waveform shape (Qi et al., 2017) and provides enhanced

image of the small scale geologic feature which helps in understanding the internal

complexity of the MTDs. Because of the presence of thrust faults in the toe region, the

attribute maps the break in reflector and/or change in amplitude values giving us an overall

lobate shape of this sedimentary feature (Figure 10). The following attribute can be used

to interpret the internal architecture of the MTD with high level of confidence.

Figure 10: Coherence extracted on a stratal slice showing thrust faults (dipping NW),

lateral wall and overall sediment direction.

29

The discontinuous linear grooves observed within the MTD are thrust faults

represented by low coherence values caused by compressional forces as discussed by

Posamentier (2010). Since the grooves are oriented in the overall North direction, it is

interpreted that the sediments must be coming in from the North (thrust faults align

perpendicular to sediment flow). The upper Spraberry isopach map further confirms this

regional sediment flow direction. Although within the MTD, the direction of sediment

movement can vary due to localized internal kinematics.

The attribute further delineates the presence of lateral wall and the sinusoidal path

(interpreted as MTD grooves) the sediments take before settling down. Coherence helps in

mapping the discontinuous boundaries of the MTD and give an aerial view of the overall

lobate shape of this feature. With the help of seismic section lines, one can begin to start

analyzing the slide/slump processes that comprises the MTD.

Slide/Slump

The transverse view (Figure 11) shows a NW-SE trending cross section and gives

an insight into the internal architecture of the MTD. Within the MTD, the seismic reflectors

seems chaotic and shows the sediments slumping on top of each other forming a duplex

structure with a series of imbricate thrust faults. The overall sediment direction is

interpreted to be coming from North as the depositional clinoforms (thrust faults) are

dipping away from the source. In the SE portion, the reflectors are less chaotic and lacks

the abrupt flow of the MTD usually indicated by the presence of the terminal wall. Due to

the absence of this terminal wall, it is interpreted that the frontal ramp is buttressed against

30

a topographic high in the Upper Leonard structure in the SE eventually slowing the

sediments down. The seismic further shows continuous reflectors before the compressional

event with little to no internal deformation indicating the MTD experienced sliding in this

section of the event. The wavy relief observed in the sliding portion shows the compressive

nature of these flows with localized faulting and detachment folds.

Figure 11: NW-SE seismic cross section showing internal reflector configuration of the

MTD and interpreted line diagram

Basal Shear Surface

The entire MTD event overlies the basal shear surface characterized by much more

continuous seismic facies (Figure 11). The basal shear zone represents the plane above

which downslope translation occurs. In order for mass movements (like MTDs) to be

deposited, an underlying surface needs to be present that remains intact and doesn’t deform

with the sedimentary flow. This surface forms the base of the MTD and makes it possible

to see where the first MTD succession occurred on seismic. Depending on the sediment

velocity, these flows can sometimes have an erosive nature and can excavate the underlying

bathymetry. Identifying the basal shear surface and the top of the MTD reflector (coherent

seismic facies; positive amplitude) binds the MTD interval.

31

Lateral wall

Viewing the reflector configuration from W-E delineates the presence of the lateral

wall and its corresponding seismic response (Figure 12). Lateral margins of MTDs are

generated parallel to their gross flow direction, and can offer a primary kinematic constraint

(Bull et al., 2009). This wall can be identified by an obvious change of going from chaotic

to coherent seismic reflectors and helps define the lateral extent of the MTD. They are

chiefly associated with strike-slip movements in MTDs (Martinsen and Bakken, 1990). As

the sediments translates, they are restricted by the presence of this lateral wall which does

not allow the sediments to go past it. As a results, the sediments start shearing in the other

direction, eventually slumping on top of each other. On the western margin of the MTD,

Figure 12: W-E seismic cross section showing internal reflector configuration of the

MTD and interpreted line diagram

32

the underlying bathymetric structure is sloping up towards the Central Basin Platform and

the feature is interpreted to stop where the structure begins to climb up.

Another observation to be noted is the orientation of the thrust faults within the

MTD that can vary considerably as the thrust faults cut through stratigraphic sections as

either ramps or flats. Additionally, repeated slip on other faults and/or associated folding,

can cause originally low-angle faults to rotate to steep angles. This is evident in the cross

sections (Figure 12) as the thrust faults are dipping at high angles buttressed against the

lateral wall where the sediments presumably travelled the shortest distance (Posamentier

and Martinsen, 2010).

Structural Curvature

The second attribute used to understand the geometry of the MTD is structural

curvature. Structural attributes include the traditional time-structure map, dip azimuth, dip

magnitude, and structural curvature among others (Marfurt, 2018). The attribute measures

the curvedness of the bending and folding of seismic reflectors by taking the derivative of

the dip in the inline and crossline direction. When viewing geologic features in a 3D

environment, curvature is subdivided into the most positive principal curvature (k1) that

shows anomaly around the peak of the anticline, and the most negative principal curvature

(k2) that shows anomaly around the trough of the syncline (Verma et al., 2018). One can

define different geometric features (bowl, valley, ridge, dome, etc) depending on different

k1 and k2 values. Additionally, curvature maps the curved deformation adjacent to the faults

which helps define the fault traces. Structural curvature was computed to understand the

33

geometry along with the curved deformation of the MTD. Figure 13 gives a visual of how

the algorithm works for a given fault trace to delineate the peaks and troughs of the thrust

fault within the MTD. On a plan view, k2 anomaly (blue colors) indicate valley like feature

and k1 anomaly (red color) represents ridge like feature (Al-Dossary and Marfurt, 2006).

Figure 13: NW-SE cross section illustrating how coherence, k1 and k2 anomalies are

mapped on the thrust faults.

Figure 14 shows how the anomalies map out once this attribute is applied on the

MTD stratal slice. k2 anomalies highlight the footwall whereas k1 anomalies highlight the

hanging wall of these thrust faults. A unique feature stands out that is coming off from the

Central Basin Platform. This curved “arm” feature shows up as a strong k1 and k2 anomaly.

Although coherence does a great job in delineating the overall shape of the MTD, it fails

to highlight this curved geometry that is otherwise picked by the curvature attribute. This

anomaly is due to a deep seated Paleozoic fault and over time the sediments conforms on

top of this structure resulting in a bend in the stratigraphic section. The curvature attribute

is picking this bend in the structure. Coherence does not pick this anomaly because the

reflector is continuous and exhibit similar waveform and amplitude values along the dip.

34

Figure 14: a) co-rendered image of coherence with k2 anomaly; b) co-rendered image of coherence with k1 anomaly; c) co-

rendered image of coherence with k1 and k2 anomaly. Notice the localized k2 anomaly behind the compressional event

35

The presence of this curved feature is interpreted to have some influence on the overall

kinematics of the sediment flow and the shape of the MTD.

Another anomaly that was picked by the structural attribute and observed within

the MTD body are the presence of discontinuous localized events before the compressional

regime that is represented by a strong k2 anomaly (Figure 14c). These peculiar features

trend orthogonal to the overall sediment flow and represents a sedimentary flow that is not

related to thrust faulting. The phenomenon that is causing this effect is referred to as gravity

spreading.

Gravity Spreading

Gravity-driven deformation have been widely documented in salt and ice-related

compressional deformation (e.g. Andersen et al., 2005; Vendeville, 2005) which results

either from gravity gliding or gravity spreading. Gravity spreading is the vertical collapse

and spreading of a wedge under its own weight as opposed to gravity sliding which is

defined as the downslope translation of a body. The key controls for gravity spreading are

the dip of the upper surface, the friction along the detachment and the internal strength of

the wedge of sliding material (Rowan et al., 2000). In the case of the MTD in our study

area, at some point the mass transport body distorted under its own weight and the

sediments started spreading out under the influence of gravity. This left an impression of

“v” shaped scour marks that is observed in seismic and highlighted by strong k2 anomalies

(Figure 15).

36

Figure 15: Top of MTD surface co-rendered with coherence and k2 anomalies highlighting the thrust faults and “v” shaped

scour marks. Overall sediment direction is interpreted to be coming in from the North.

37

Although curvature and coherence are both useful in delineating faults, they are not

redundant attributes but instead are complementary (Marfurt, 2018; Figure 14). In general,

coherence, most positive-curvature, and most negative-curvature anomalies often do not

align with each other (Marfurt, 2018). For the thrust faults within the MTD, low coherence

anomalies are usually aligned along the fault trace, positive-curvature anomalies are shifted

towards the hanging wall, and negative-curvature anomalies are shifted towards the

footwall, thereby bracketing the fault trace. k2 anomaly further highlights the scour marks

that are left by the sediments due to gravity spreading.

Seismic Amplitude

Although not a geometric attribute, seismic amplitude is quick and easy way to look

at stratigraphic features without involving strenuous attribute calculations. Seismic

amplitude is a measure of rock layers that have contrasting impedance (product of density

and velocity) values and can be positive, negative or zero depending on the relative

impedance of the stratigraphic layer.

For a picked upper Leonard horizon, amplitudes values were extracted and viewed

to understand the MTD geometry. Figure 10 illustrates how the amplitude anomalies map

out going up the MTD stratigraphic section. The sinusoidal path taken by the sediments in

the first MTD succession can be observed (Figure 16A) which highlights the translational

regime of the mass movement. The imbricate thrust faults towards the compressional

regime are hard to discern by studying amplitude anomalies by themselves. In general,

impedance change can be inferred from the low and high amplitude anomalies but the plan

38

Figure 16: Seismic amplitude values extracted on stratal slice showing the change in amplitude anomalies going up the MTD

stratigraphic section (left to right). The overall geometry of the MTD is hard to discern using amplitude values by itself

39

view does not help much in characterizing the external morphology of the MTD. Well logs

has to be incorporated to make any lithology (impedance change) interpretations and

understand the MTDs composition.

Lithologic character of the MTD in the Midland Basin

Mass movements have the potential to move vast amounts of sediment from

shelf/slope to deep water settings and alter the original stratification and lithologic

compositions. Such modifications can increase lithologic complexity and can be critical

for hydrocarbon exploration. One way to understand the complexity within the MTD

mapped in the study area is through the use of wireline logs. Besides their traditional use

in exploration to assist with structure and isopach mapping, wireline logs help define

physical rock properties such as lithology, porosity and permeability (Asquith et al., 1982)

and aid in our understanding of the complexities within the rocks. As discussed by

Posamentier (2007), it is imperative to integrate borehole data along with seismic section

and plan view to properly define MTDs and understand their lithological character. Gamma

ray and resistivity logs are used in this study to understand the lithologic character of the

MTD.

Gamma-ray response correlates with increasing clay or organic matter and to a

lesser extent with increasing feldspar owing to radioactive potassium (Hamlin et al., 2013).

Carbonates exhibit the lowest gamma-ray response, while organic rich rocks including

shales and laminated siltstones exhibit the highest gamma-ray response.

40

Resistivity logs are primarily used to identify hydrocarbon versus water bearing

zones and indicate permeable zones (Asquith et al., 1982). However, they can be used for

lithofacies identification where high resistivity typically corresponds to carbonates or

tightly cemented sandstones with low clay content and permeability. Organic matter also

increases resistivity. Laminated siltstones and permeable rocks usually exhibit low

resistivity response.

Asmus and others (2013) gives us an insight on the MTDs response on image logs

and conventional logs in the Upper Bone Spring formation (Upper Leonard) of the

Delaware basin. According to the study, direct correlation of cores to image logs reveal

that MTDs can be identified directly from image logs resulting in contrasting resistivity

patterns. The study correlated a sharp decrease in gamma-ray response for these deposits,

indicating an increase in limestone. For the same gamma-ray response, resistivity logs

exhibited a sharp increase which corresponds to moderate to high resistivity (skeletal-rich)

response on image logs.

In the study area, 3 wells were analyzed using gamma-ray and resistivity logs to

understand the lithologic character of the MTD. Figure 17 shows a cross section

highlighting wells X and Y that covers the compressional regime of the MTD and well Z

which is located outside the MTD. The well outside the MTD gives us the lithologic

composition of the upper leonard sea floor on which the MTD deposition occurred. The

logs were hung on the upper Spraberry formation and the top and base of MTD was picked

41

on low gamma-ray/high resistivity beds. The MTD interval in the study area is 350 feet

thick.

Figure 17: Well logs indicating MTD as a mix of carbonates and siliciclastic sediments.

Based on the density value of 2.63 g/cc, the low gamma-ray package indicates

limestone (calcareous lithofacies) whereas a high gamma-ray response is interpreted as

shales (siliciclastic lithofacies). Hence, well X and Y indicate a mix of calcareous and

siliciclastic sediments and makes up the lithologic composition for the MTD. The porosity

logs provide additional information about rock properties. Calcareous rocks typically have

higher densities and faster sonic travel time than siliciclastic sediments. A large separation

between the density and neutron porosity curves indicate clay rich rocks and low separation

42

indicates a tighter rock with less porosity. Well Z shows a higher concentration of

calcareous sediments within the MTD interval with low gamma-ray/high resistivity

response which are interpreted as the slope carbonates of the Central Basin Platform. With

the help of seismic attributes along with well log analysis, the overall interpretation of the

MTD is discussed in the next section.

43

CHAPTER VI

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Mass transport deposits (MTDs) observed in the Permian Basin are widespread

deposits and can extend up to several miles. Posamentier (2006) estimates that up to 50%

of the entire section can be moved during these processes. However, this estimate may be

low as seismic resolution may be unable to detect finer scale mass movement processes.

The upper Leonard MTD was interpreted throughout the 440 mi2 Fasken C Ranch seismic

survey in the Midland basin. This allowed observations of how sedimentary features flow

during mass transports and the resulting sediment deposition.

The MTD mapped in the study area covers the translational and compressional

regime of the mass movement. Kinematic evidence provided by the upper Spraberry

structure suggests the MTD flow direction was from the North toward bathyal depths as

the sediments follow the peak and saddle morphology of the Horseshoe Atoll. Seismic

attributes (Figure 18) delineated the structural morphology of the sedimentary flow and

helped compartmentalize the MTD (lateral wall, thrust faults, lobate shape and gravity

spreading). The interpreted lobate shape of the MTD is due to the shearing of the sediments

as they are restricted by the presence of the lateral wall. The slumping comes to a stop

where the flow encounters an upper Leonard high towards the compressional regime and

as the structure starts climbing up towards the west on the Central Basin Platform.

44

Figure 18: Overall interpretation of the Upper Leonard MTD observed in the Midland basin.

45

Three driving forces possibly responsible for the origin of the compressional structures are

gravity, compressional stress resulting from rear-push and shear stress resulting from

friction. The k2 anomaly that highlights the footwall of the thrust faults is the same k2

anomaly that highlights the “v” shaped scour marks at the upper MTD body due to gravity

spreading. The curved “arm” (highlighted by strong k1 and k2 anomaly) coming off the

Central Basin Platform is interpreted as a bend in the structure that is affected by a deep

seated Paleozoic fault and may have acted as a constraint on the internal kinematics of the

MTD and how the sediments were getting deposited.

The 350 feet thick MTD lithology is composed of carbonates and shales with

moderate to high resistivity response and agrees with wireline correlations of the cyclic

Leonardian platform deposits prograding towards the basin from clinoformal carbonates

into flat lying calcareous and siliciclastic intervals (Ruppel et al., 2000; Asmus et al., 2013).

A study conducted in the Delaware Basin demonstrated that MTDs can enhance production

if targeted optimally where the faults enhance production rather than restrict it (Allen,

2013). This study investigated that the first well drilled inside the MTD zone of the 2nd

Bone Spring sand had a 30 day average IP of 835 BOPD, which greatly outperformed the

average 2nd Bone Spring well of 344 BOPD located locally but outside the MTD. Based

on wireline correlations and their location in the depositional system, the reservoir potential

for the MTD looks promising in the Midland Basin.

46

REFERENCES

Al-Dossary, S., and Marfurt K. J., (2006). 3D volumetric multispectral estimates

of reflector curvature and rotation, Geophysics, 71, no. 5, P41-P51.

https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2242449

Allen, J., Schwartz, K., DeSantis, J., Koglin, D., and Chen, F., (2013). Integration

of Structure and Stratigraphy in Bone Spring Tight Oil Sandstones using 3D Seismic in

the Delaware Basin, TX. Unconventional Resources Technology Conference.

Amerman, R., (2009). Deepwater mass-transport deposits: Structure, Stratigraphy,

and Implications for Basin Evolution.

Anderson, L.T., Hansen, D.L. and Huuse, M., (2005). Numerical modelling of

thrust structures in unconsolidated sediments: implications for Glaciotectonic

deformation. J. Struct. Geol., 27, 587–596

Asmus, J. J., and Grammer G. M., (2013). Characterization of deepwater

carbonate turbidites and mass-transport deposits utilizing high-resolution electrical

borehole image logs: Upper Leonardian (Lower Permian) Upper Bone Spring

Limestone, Delaware Basin, Southeast New Mexico and West Texas: Gulf Coast

Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 63, p. 27–65.

Asquith, G., and Gibson, C., (1982). Basic Well Log Analysis for Geologists. The

American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

Bakken, B., (1987). Sedimentology and syndepositional deformation of the Ross

Slide, Western Irish Namurian Basin, Ireland. Unpublished Cand. Scient. Thesis:

Geological Institute, Dep. A, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway, XXX p.

Bhatnagar, P., M. Scipione, S. Verma, and R. Bianco, 2018, Characterization of

mass transport deposit using seismic attributes: Spraberry Formation, Midland Basin,

West Texas: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 1618-1622.

https://library.seg.org/doi/abs/10.1190/segam2018-2998610.1

Bhatnagar, P., C. Bennett, R. Khoudaiberdiev, S. Lepard, and S. Verma, 2017, Seismic

attribute illumination of a synthetic transfer zone: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts,

pp. 2112-2116. https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2017-17664850.1

47

Bull, S., Cartwright, J., and Huuse, M., (2009). A review of kinematic indicators

from masstransport complexes using 3D seismic data. Marine and Petroleum Geology,

26(7), 1132–1151.

Butler, R., Sanchez A.D.P., McCaffrey B., Eggenhuisen J., Haughton P., Barker

S., Hakes B., and Apps G., (2006). Dynamic formation of Rugosity on Mass Transport

Complexes – Implications for Emplacement Dynamics , SEPM Research Symposium:

The Significance of Mass Transport Deposits in Deepwater Environments II, AAPG

Annual Convention, April 9-12, 2006 Technical Program.

Carpenter, G., (1987). The relation of clathrates and sediment stability, in

Conference on Continental Margin Mass Wasting and Pleistocene Sea-Level Changes,

August 13–15, 1980: U.S. Geological Survey, Circular, p. 88–95

Davies, R.J., Posamentier, H.W., Cartwright, J.A. and Wood, L., (2007). Seismic

geomorphology: Applications to Hydrocarbon Exploration and Production. Geologic

Society, London, Special Publications, 277.

Dingle, R.V., (1977). The anatomy of a large submarine slump on a sheared

continental margin (SE Africa): Geological Society of London, Journal, v. 134, p. 293–

310.

Festa A., Ogata K., Pini G.A., and Dilek Y., (2016). Origin and Significance of

Olistostromes in the Evolution of Orogenic Belts: A Global Synthesis. Gondwana

Research 39:180-203. DOI: 10.1016/j.gr.2016.08.002

Gawloski, T. F., (1987). Nature, distribution, and petroleum potential of Bone

Spring detrital sediments along the Northwest Shelf of the Delaware Basin, in D.

Cromwell and L. Mazzullo, eds, The Leonardian facies in West Texas and Southeast

New Mexico and guidebook to the Glass Mountains, West Texas: Permian Basin Section

of the Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Publication 87–27,

Midland, Texas, p. 85–106.

Hamlin, H.S., and Baumgardner R. W., (2013). Wolfberry (Wolfcampian‐

Leonardian) Deep‐Water Depositional Systems in the Midland Basin: Stratigraphy,

Lithofacies, Reservoirs, and Source Rocks.

Handford, C. R., (1981a). Deep-water facies of the Spraberry Formation

(Permian), Reagan County, Texas, in Siemers, C. T., Tillman, R. W., and Williamson, C.

R., eds., Deep- water clastic sediments-a core workshop: Society of Economic

Paleontologists and Mineralogists Core Workshop NO. 2, p. 372-395.

48

Handford, C. R., (1981b). Sedimentology and genetic stratigraphy of Dean and

Spraberry Formations (Permian), Midland Basin, Texas: American Association of

Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 65, no. 9, 1602-1 61 6.

Hills, J.M., (1983). Sedimentation, tectonism, and hydrocarbon generation in

Delaware Basin, West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico. Web.

Hoak, T.; Sundberg, K. and Ortoleva, P., (1998). Overview of the Structural

Geology and Tectonis of the Central Basin Platform, Delaware Basin, and Midland

Basin, West Texas and New Mexico. December 31, 1998.

Khoudaiberdiev, R., C. Bennett, P. Bhatnagar, and S. Verma, 2017, Seismic

interpretation of Cree Sand channels on the Scotian Shelf: SEG Technical Program

Expanded Abstracts, pp. 2008-2012. https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2017-17742372.1

Jenner, K.A., Piper, D.J.W., Campbell, D.C., and Mosher, D.C., (2007).

Lithofacies and origin of late Quaternary mass transport deposits in submarine canyons,

central Scotian Slope, Canada: Sedimentology, v.54, p. 19–38.

Leeder, M.R., (1987). Sediment deformation structures and the palaeotectonic

analysis of sedimentary basins, with a case study from the Carboniferous of northern

England, in Jones, M.E., and Preston, R.M.F., eds., Deformation of Sediments and

Sedimentary Rocks: Geological Society of London, Special Publication 29, p. 137–146.

Lewis, K.B., (1971). Slumping on continental slope inclined at 1–4°:

Sedimentology, v. 16, p. 97-110.

Luo, Y., Higgs W. G., and Kowalik W. S., (1996). Edge detection and

stratigraphic analysis using 3-D seismic data: 66th Annual International Meeting, SEG,

Expanded Abstracts, 324–327.

Marfurt, K.J., (2018). Seismic Attributes as the Framework for Data Integration

throughout the Oilfield Life Cycle. 2018 Distinguished Instructor Short Course. Society

of Exploration Geophysicist.

Martinsen, O.J., and Bakken, B., (1990). Extensional and compressional zones in

slumps and slides in the Namurian of County Clare, Eire: Geological Society of London,

Journal, v. 147, p. 153–164.

Martinsen, O.J., (1994). Mass movements, in Maltman, A., ed., The Geological

Deformation of Sediments: London, Chapman & Hall, p. 127–165.

49

Martinez, F.J., (2010). 3D Seismic Interpretation of Mass Transort Deposits:

Implications for Basin Analysis and Geohazard Evaluation. Advances in Natural and

Technological Hazards Research, Vol 28.

Maslin, M., Mikkelsen, N., Vilela, C., and Haq, B., (1998). Sea-level- and gas-

hydrate-controlled catastrophic sediment failures of the Amazon Fan: Geology, v. 26, p.

1107–1110.

Moscardelli, L., Wood, L., and Mann, P., (2006). Mass-transport complexes and

associated processes in the offshore area of Trinidad and Venezuela: American

Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 90, p.1059–1088.

Nemec, W., (1991). Aspects of sediment movement on steep delta slopes, in

Colella, A., and Prior, D.B., eds., Coarse-Grained Deltas: International Association of

Sedimentologists, Special Publication 10, p. 29–73.

Nissen, S.E., Haskell, N.L., Steiner, C.T., and Coterill, K.L., (1999). Debris flow

outrunner blocks, glide tracks, and pressure ridges identified on the Nigerian continental

slope using 3-D seismic coherency. The Leading Edge, 18(5), 595-599.

Playton, T. E., and Kerans C., (2002). Slope and toe-of-slope deposits shed from a

late Wolfcampian tectonically active carbonate ramp margin: Gulf Coast Association

ofbGeological Societies Transactions, v. 52, p. 811–820

Posamentier H.W., and Martinsen O.J., (2010). The Character and Genesis of

Submarine Mass-Transport Deposits: Insights from Outcrop 3D Seismic Data. SEPM

Special Publication No. 95.

Posamentier H.W., (2017). Seismic Stratigraphy and Geomorphology – The Next

Frontier 21st Century Reservoir Characterization. American Association of Petroleum

Geologists (AAPG) South West Section (SWS) Bill Hailey short course.

Posamentier, H.W., and Walker, R.G., (2006). Deep-water turbidites and

submarine fans, in Posamentier, H.W., and Walker, R.G., eds., Facies Models Revisited:

SEPM, Special Publication 84, p. 397–520

Posamentier, H.W., Meizarwin, Wisman, P.S., and Plawman, T., (2000). Deep

water depositional systems—ultra-deep Makassar Strait, Indonesia, in Weimer, P., Slatt,

R.M, Coleman, J., Rosen, N.C., Nelson, H., Bouma, A.H., Styzen, M.J., and Lawrence,

D.T., eds., DeepWater Reservoirs of the World: Gulf Coast Section SEPM Foundation,

20th Annual Bob F. Perkins Research Conference, p. 806–816

50

Posamentier H.W., and Kolla V., (2003). Seismic geomorphology and

stratigraphy of depositional elements in deep-water settings. J Sed Res 73:367–388.

Prior, D.B., and Coleman, J.M., (1979). Submarine landslides: geometry and

nomenclature: Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, v. 23, p. 415–426.

Qi, J., Li, F., and Marfurt, K.J., (2017). Multiazimuth coherence, Geophysics, 82,

no.6, O83-O89. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2017-0196.1

Rapier, R., (2018). What Record Oil Production In The Permian Basin Looks

Like. Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 15 Jan. 2018,

www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/01/15/record-oil-production-in-the-permian-

basin/#5d9fb21e4497.

Rowan, M.G., Peel, F.J. & Vendeville, B.C., (2004). Gravity driven fold belts on

passive margins. In: Thrust Tectonics and Hydrocarbon Systems (Ed. by McClay K.R.),

AAPG Memoir, 82, 157–182.

Ross, C. A., (1986). Paleozoic evolution of the southern margin of the Permian

Basin: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 97, p. 536–554.

Ruppel, S. C., Ward, W. B., Ariza, E. E., and Jennings, J. W., Jr., (2000). Cycle

and sequence stratigraphy of Clear Fork reservoir-equivalent outcrops: Victorio Peak

Formation, Sierra Diablo, Texas, in Lindsay, R. F., Ward, R. F., Trentham, R. C., and

Smith, A. H., eds., Classic Permian geology of West Texas and southeastern New

Mexico; 75 years of Permian Basin oil & gas exploration and development: West Texas

Geological Society Publication No. 00-108, p. 109–130.

Saller, A. H., J. W. Barton, and Barton R. E., (1989). Slope sedimentation

associated with a vertically building shelf, Bone Spring Formation, Mescalero Escarpe

Field, southeastern New Mexico, in P. D. Crevello, J. L. Wilson, F. Sarg, and J. F.

Read, eds., Controls on carbonate platform and basin development: Society of Economic

Paleontologists and Mineralogists (Society for Sedimentary Geology) Special Publication

44, Tulsa, Oklahoma, p. 275– 288.

Seed, H.B., (1968). Landslides during earthquakes due to soil liquefaction:

American Society of Civil Engineers, Proceedings, Journal of Soil Mechanics

Foundation, v. 94, p. 1055–1122.

Shipp R.C., Weimer P., Posamentier H.W., (2011). Mass-Transport Deposits in

Deepwater Settings: An Introduction. https://doi.org/10.2110/sepmsp.096.003.

51

Trentham, R., (2018). Donated to The University of Texas of the Permian Basin.

Modified and used with permission.

Tyler, N., Gholston, J. C., and Guevara, E. H., (1997). Basin morphological

controls on submarine-fan depositional trends: Spraberry Sandstone, Permian Basin,

Texas: University of Texas at Austin Bureau of Economic Geology Geological Circular

97-6, 43 p.

Vendeville, B.C., (2005). Salt tectonics driven by sediment progradation: part i-

mechanics and kinematics. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull., 89, 1071–1079

Vest, E. L., (1970). Oil fields of Pennsylvanian-Permian Horseshoe Atoll, West

Texas, in Geology of giant petroleum fields: American Association of Petroleum

Geologists Memoir 14, p. 185–203.

Verma, S., S. Bhattacharya, B. Lujan, D. Agrawal, S. Mallick, 2018, Delineation

of early Jurassic aged sand dunes and paleo-wind direction in southwestern Wyoming

using seismic attributes, inversion, and petrophysical modeling: Journal of Natural Gas

Science and Engineering, 60, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2018.09.022.

Wiggins, W. D., and Harris P. M., (1985). Burial diagenetic sequence in deep-

water allochthonous dolomites: Permian Bone Spring Formation, Southeast New

Mexico: Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists (Society for

Sedimentary Geology) Core Workshop 6, Tulsa, Oklahoma, p. 140–173.